[Bug 2136236] New: Review Request: mingw-python-flit-core - MinGW Python flit_core library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
Bug ID: 2136236 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-flit-core - MinGW Python flit_core library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisandro@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-flit-core.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-flit-core-3.7.1-1.fc38.sr... Description: MinGW Python flit_core library Fedora Account System Username: smani
Test builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/mingw-python3-3.11-build/build...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
Maxwell G gotmax@e.email changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |gotmax@e.email
--- Comment #1 from Maxwell G gotmax@e.email --- This bootstrap logic is not necessary. See https://flit.pypa.io/en/stable/bootstrap.html.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
--- Comment #2 from Maxwell G gotmax@e.email --- Would it be possible to run unit tests like we do for most other Python packages?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks for the pointer, I've adapted the spec:
%changelog * Wed Oct 19 2022 Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com - 3.7.1-2 - Use flit bootstrapping logic
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-flit-core.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-flit-core-3.7.1-2.fc38.sr...
Regarding tests: I haven't yet looked into it for mingw-python packages, I'd prefer to finish the py3.11 migration first and then look into it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl
--- Comment #4 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- I might as well...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #5 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- LGTM: Just needs the license string expanded and compulsory comment added.
Approved!
Issues: =======
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => flit_core/versionno.py is BSD-2-Clause
- rpmlint: E: zero-length and E: non-executable-script regarding some sample files => I think that's okay
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 79 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/mingw-python- flit-core/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- E: zero-length and E: non-executable-script regarding some sample files => I think that's okay
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/flit_core/flit_core-3.7.1.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14955af340c43035dbfa96b5ee47407e377ee337f69e70f73064940d27d0a44f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14955af340c43035dbfa96b5ee47407e377ee337f69e70f73064940d27d0a44f
Requires -------- mingw32-python3-flit-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(python(abi))
mingw64-python3-flit-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(python(abi))
Provides -------- mingw32-python3-flit-core: mingw32(python3.11dist(flit-core)) mingw32(python3dist(flit-core)) mingw32-python3-flit-core
mingw64-python3-flit-core: mingw64(python3.11dist(flit-core)) mingw64(python3dist(flit-core)) mingw64-python3-flit-core
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name mingw-python-flit-core --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, R, fonts, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
--- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Thanks! I'll fix the license to BSD-2-Clause on import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-python-flit-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f7a5568776 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7a5568776
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-11-01 11:05:20
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-f7a5568776 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com